Subject: Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:39:55 -0500

> From: Paul Robinson <[email-masked]>

     > of course, if after a couple of years it isn't working, there is nothing
     > stopping the IETF rescinding, and supporting IPv4 once more due to
     > "customer pressures". :-)

Hello? That's where we are *now*.

May I remind you that IPv6 has been available December 1995, when the first
set of IPv6 specification RFC's came out, and now, almost 10 years later,
deployment is still minimal. The customers have "voted with their feet" for
IPv4.

(Yes, I know, "the support situation has improved and we expect wide-scale
deployment in the next year" - I think I've heard that same mantra every year
for the last N years. I really ought to go back through my email folders and
create a web page of IPv6 predictions. In fact, I think that's a good idea -
it will help make plain how hollow such claims are. My task for today! :-)

Anyway, the point is that successful networking technologies don't take 10
years to succeed. They either catch on, or they don't, and after 10 years
this one has not caught on.

The upgrade path (replace the entire internet layer in one fell swoop) IPv6
adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different.

	Noel

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:19:09 +0100

On 13-jan-04, at 15:39, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

>     > of course, if after a couple of years it isn't working, there is
>     > nothing stopping the IETF rescinding, and supporting IPv4 once
>     >  more due to "customer pressures". :-)

> set of IPv6 specification RFC's came out,

That's ridiculous. Any IPv6 implementation from before around 2000 is 
really too immature to be usable (just look at those early specs), and 
there are still problem areas that must be solved before IPv6 can be 
considered a decent alternative to IPv4.

> and now, almost 10 years later, deployment is still minimal. The 
> customers have "voted with their feet" for IPv4.

Not yet.

> deployment in the next year" - I think I've heard that same mantra 
> every year for the last N years. I really ought to go back through my 
> email folders and create a web page of IPv6 predictions. In fact, I 
> think that's a good idea - it will help make plain how hollow such 
> claims are. My task for today! :-)

But you are doing the exact same thing by claiming premature defeat. If 
IPv6 were really as dead as you say, how is it possible that so many 
vendors have been implementing so many new IPv6 features the past year 
alone?

> this one has not caught on.

It would be interesting to compare the first 5 years of ARPANET with 
the first 5 years of IPv6 availability. I wouldn't be surprised if 
there are more systems running IPv6 today than systems connected to the 
ARPANET in 1974.

> adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different.

If this is what you really want I think you should make your case based 
on technical merit of the new approach over IPv6 rather than a 
perceived marketing failure.

---

From: Hayriye Altunbasak <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:34:16 -0500

Just a small comment:
Should not you first investigate the reason why IPv6 is not successful in 
terms of  deployment (yet)? So that, we won't make the same mistakes if the 
world decides to sth else....

At 09:39 AM 1/13/2004 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> nothing

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:02:28 +0200 (EET)

> adopted clearly isn't working. Time to try something rather different.

Exactly.  As we have been saying for years not, we must aim for
co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6, not replacing IPv4 with IPv6.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:38:07 +0200 (EET)

> Exactly.  As we have been saying for years not, we must aim for
                                             ^^^
Oops:                                      s/not/now/

> co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6, not replacing IPv4 with IPv6.

.. but this was probably understandable. :-)

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:07:38 +1100

"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
	[..]
> it will help make plain how hollow such claims are. My task for today! :-)

Not trying to be facetious, but it would be useful to supplement this with
a list other technologies that didn't taken off and reach world-dominating
acceptance within 10 years of being partially spec'd out. Then note their
ultimate market penetration/impact.

cheers,
gja